Karnataka High Court
Shri. Hulisiddaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.828 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. HULISIDDAIAH
S/O. KALAMUDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 15, HULISIDDEGOWDANADODDI
BANNIKUPPE, GIRENAHALLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
PIN - 562 112.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
2
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.14/1, ARAVINDA BHAVANA,
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GENERAL AWARDS BEARING NO. KIADB/ L.A.Q./2013-14 DATED
31.12.2013 AND NO.KIADB/L.A.Q/95/2017-18 DATED
20.04.2017 PASSED BY THE R3 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY
BEARING SY.NO. 232/7 MEASURING 01 ACRE 04 GUNTAS AND
SY.NO.174/6 MEASURING 04 GUNTAS BOTH SITUATED AT
BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE , HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA
TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE
ANNEXURE- A AND A1; AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The fact matrix of this petition is substantially similar
to the one in W.P.Nos.39611-39612 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)
between SMT.RUKMANI & ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA & OTHERS disposed off by a learned
Co-ordinate Judge of this Court vide judgment dated
16.09.2016 wherein paragraphs 2 & 3 read as under:
"2. Section 29(2) of 'KIAD Act', provides for
determination of compensation by way of
agreement. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to
such a consideration since it is stated that by
agreement, petitioners would be entitled to a
better price as compensation instead of a
determination by way of a general award. In
addition, it is stated that there would be a
finality to the acquisition proceedings
and also for settlement of compensation since
petitioners would be disentitled to challenge the
same and to seek for higher market value/
compensation. Therefore, there is a need to
interfere with the general award at Annexure-F
in so far as petitioners are concerned.
3. In the circumstances, these petitions are
allowed. General award at Annexure-F in so far
as it relates to petitioners, is quashed. A
direction shall ensue to the third respondent-
Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to
consider the case of the petitioners for
determination of compensation by way of
agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act,
to be complied with as expeditiously as possible
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. It is made clear that this
order is applicable if there is no dispute to title to
the immovable property acquired and if there is
one, then the general award in so far as
petitioners are concerned will stand restored,
until the dispute is resolved in favour of the
petitioners. The third respondent is permitted to
withdraw the award amount in relation to the
aforesaid land, if deposited in the Civil Court. No
costs."
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that
the similar relief as has been granted in the cognate writ
petition needs to be extended to his client as well. There is
force in the submission.
In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off,
according the same relief as has been granted by the
Co-ordinate Bench in the case mentioned above; a Writ of
Certiorari quashing the awards dated 31.12.2013
(Annexure-A) & 20.04.2017 (Annexure-A1) so far as
Petitioner is concerned only to facilitate re-determination of
the compensation treating the acquisition as being
the one by agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.
For all other purposes, the impugned awards would
continue on record.
Time for compliance is three months.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
